There should be enough to keep the Coalition gainfully occupied – and intact –
until next May

The final session of the current parliament yesterday ushered in one of the lightest legislative programmes for more than 60 years – and that is no bad thing. Too much importance is attached to the quantity rather than the quality of law-making; indeed Labour’s principal criticism of the Queen’s Speech – that it contained too little in the way of statutory reform – will for many people be its most creditable attribute.

This is not to say there was nothing of importance. Radical and welcome reforms of the pensions system, some of which were outlined in the Budget in March, form the centrepiece of the package and are rightly described as the biggest overhaul yet seen. They will give individuals greater freedom and choice over how to use their own savings and are a long-overdue break from the paternalistic instincts of past governments in this field. More than 300,000 people retiring each year will be able to decide when and how to use their pension pot.

The immediate advantage accruing from other proposed pension reforms is less easy to see until the detail has been fleshed out. In particular, enabling mutual schemes that pool risk between members looks a good idea. In the Netherlands, where such schemes have long operated, a pensioner can enjoy annual payments 30 per cent higher than a British counterpart largely through reduced administrative costs and fees, though also because contributions are greater. However, adopting such schemes would require a considerable cultural shift in Britain away from the concept of individual provision towards a more collective approach. It is also unclear whether members of mutual pensions would have the same freedoms as are being introduced for defined contribution savers. None the less, these are bold and important reforms that deserve support, even if they are necessitated partly by the damage inflicted upon pension returns by the Labour government and Gordon Brown.

Much of the rest of the programme, far from being the “zombie” living death that Labour tiresomely contends it to be, is perfectly praiseworthy if not altogether essential. Bills to crack down on the modern-day slave trade, and to protect people from litigation under health and safety laws if they have acted heroically, are hardly contentious and may even be covered by existing statute and judicial practice. We have our doubts about the efficacy of the so-called Cinderella law that will make emotional cruelty a crime. It is not the intention but whether in practice it will work in a just and fair way that is the objection here. The child-care provisions will help mitigate the costs for hard-pressed young parents, but mark a further step on the road to a nationalised system.

That said, the key challenge for the Coalition over the next year will be to keep the economy on track and lay the foundations for future growth. House-building, investment in infrastructure, improved energy security (especially the encouragement for fracking) – all these are essential tasks of government and do not necessarily require new legislation. Some Bills will almost certainly never see the light of day, since they will not have completed their passage before the parliament runs its course next spring. The Recall Bill, for instance, intended to give constituents the chance to demand a by-election when an MP has been convicted of a serious offence, or when the Commons thinks one is warranted, has the makings of a constitutional quagmire despite Labour’s promise of support.

As with previous Queen’s Speeches, this one reasserted promises to reduce the burdens on business without offering the bolder deregulatory agenda that is needed. If anything, curbing zero-hours contracts and introducing new rules to enforce the minimum wage will involve more bureaucracy, not less. Moreover, the impact on the big pub companies of loosening the ties with landlords is by no means clear-cut. Many in the industry fear this reform will undermine a tried and trusted business model and cause pubs to close. It needs to be implemented carefully.

Similarly, the 5p charge on plastic bags in England from October 2015 hardly represents the rolling back of state interference in business, even if the end may be justified. The Government at least recognises this contradiction by exempting small and medium-sized businesses from the charge. What is really needed is less packaging by retailers and investment in research to produce a properly biodegradable bag, which would not be subject to a charge. There is a challenge here for the nation’s inventors.

At the end of a period in which voters have made clear their dissatisfaction with mainstream political parties, two issues that worry the electorate – immigration and EU reform – were largely absent from the programme. Today’s by-election in Newark, where the Tories are defending a 16,000 majority against a rampant Ukip, will be the first test of whether David Cameron has convinced enough people that the Coalition is not simply going through the motions or making its last stand, as Dennis Skinner put it in his State Opening annual quip (now almost a part of the ceremonial). There should be enough there to keep it gainfully occupied – and intact – until next May.